Tag Archives: utility

TLT: Negative Beta Makes This Bond ETF Great For The Equity Heavy Portfolios

Summary TLT is a high-duration treasury ETF. The expense ratio of .15% is within reason and the yield of 2.66% is enough to generate a small amount of income. The main reason for holding a fund like TLT is to keep portfolios values steady when equity markets fall on fear. TLT has a negative correlation with most equity investments and a negative correlation with short term high yield bond funds. Investors should be seeking to improve their risk adjusted returns. I’m a big fan of using ETFs to achieve the risk adjusted returns relative to the portfolios that a normal investor can generate for themselves after trading costs. I’m working on building a new portfolio and I’m going to be analyzing several of the ETFs that I am considering for my personal portfolio. One of the funds that I’m considering is the iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: TLT ). I’ll be performing a substantial portion of my analysis along the lines of modern portfolio theory, so my goal is to find ways to minimize costs while achieving diversification to reduce my risk level. Expense Ratio The expense ratio on TLT is .15%, which is within reason for long term treasury ETFs. I’d love to see expense ratios dipping towards single digits, but this is still within reason. Yield The yield on the fund is 2.66%. This is lower than investors would expect from even a short term high yield fund, but it does provide some income in exchange for investors taking on the duration risk which can cause TLT to be fairly volatile. Maturity The maturity profile for TLT is fairly simple, as shown below. Over 98% of the portfolio is in treasury securities with a maturity of at least 20 years. Given the name of the ETF, that shouldn’t be a surprise. Similarly, the fund is pretty much exclusively treasury securities. No surprises in this category. Building the Portfolio This hypothetical portfolio has a moderately aggressive allocation for the middle aged investor. Only 30% of the total portfolio value is placed in bonds and a third of that bond allocation is given to high yield bonds. This portfolio is probably taking on more risk than would be appropriate for many retiring investors since the volatility on equity can be so high. However, the diversification within the portfolio is fairly solid. Long term treasuries work nicely with major market indexes and I’ve designed this hypothetical portfolio without putting in the allocation I normally would for REITs on the assumption that the hypothetical portfolio is not going to be tax exempt. Hopefully investors will be keeping at least a material portion of their investment portfolio in tax advantaged accounts. The portfolio assumes frequent rebalancing which would be a problem for short term trading outside of tax advantaged accounts unless the investor was going to rebalance by adding to their positions on a regular basis and allocating the majority of the capital towards whichever portions of the portfolio had been underperforming recently. (click to enlarge) A quick rundown of the portfolio The two bond funds in the portfolio are TLT and the PIMCO 0-5 Year High Yield Corporate Bond Index ETF (NYSEARCA: HYS ) for high yield shorter term debt and for longer term treasury debt. TLT should be useful for the highly negative correlation it provides relative to the equity positions. HYS on the other hand is attempting to produce more current income with less duration risk by taking on some credit risk. The Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR ETF (NYSEARCA: XLP ) is used to make the portfolio overweight on consumer staples with a goal of providing more stability to the equity portion of the portfolio. The iShares U.S. Utilities ETF (NYSEARCA: IDU ) is used to create a significant utility allocation for the portfolio to give it a higher dividend yield and help it produce more income. I find the utility sector often has some desirable risk characteristics that make it worth at least considering for an overweight representation in a portfolio. The iShares MSCI EAFE Small-Cap ETF (NYSEARCA: SCZ ) is used to provide some international diversification to the portfolio by giving it holdings in the foreign small-cap space. The core of the portfolio comes from simple exposure to the S&P 500 via the SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF (NYSEARCA: SPY ), though I would suggest that investors creating a new portfolio and not tied into an ETF for that large domestic position should consider the alternative by Vanguard, the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (NYSEARCA: VOO ), which offers similar holdings and a lower expense ratio. I have yet to see any good argument for not using or another very similar fund as the core of a portfolio. In this piece I’m using SPY because some investors with a very long history of selling SPY may not want to trigger the capital gains tax on selling the position and thus choose to continue holding SPY rather than the alternatives with lower expense ratios. Risk Contribution The risk contribution category demonstrates the amount of the portfolio’s volatility that can be attributed to that position. Despite TLT being fairly volatile and tying SPY for the second highest volatility in the portfolio, it actually produces a negative risk contribution because it has a negative correlation with most of the portfolio. It is important to recognize that the “risk” on an investment needs to be considered in the context of the entire portfolio. To make it easier to analyze how risky each holding would be in the context of the portfolio, I have most of these holdings weighted at a simple 10%. Because of TLT’s heavy negative correlation, it receives a weighting of 20% and as the core of the portfolio SPY was weighted as 50%. Correlation The chart below shows the correlation of each ETF with each other ETF in the portfolio and with the S&P 500. Blue boxes indicate positive correlations and tan box indicate negative correlations. Generally speaking lower levels of correlation are highly desirable and high levels of correlation substantially reduce the benefits from diversification. When it comes down to it, TLT shines in a portfolio. In a vacuum, TLT would be a fairly poor investment due to its high volatility and mediocre yield. Being over 2.6% means the income is material, but for most investors that yield is not going to cover a large portion of their living expenses and unlike dividend growth funds this won’t be rapidly compounding unless the position is increasing in value from yields falling. The additional total return would be nice, but it would leave investors with even fewer options for trying to produce material amounts of income to support their lifestyle. By including TLT in a portfolio that is heavy on equities the risk/return profile is materially improved. A strong negative correlation with equity investments means TLT generally moves up when those investments are falling in value. The combined portfolio exhibits substantially less volatility than the domestic equity market. While high volatility for an individual holding can often be considered a bad thing, negative correlations with so many other investments completely reverses the impact. Look at the chart below to see how much higher the total risk profile of the portfolio would have been if the position in TLT had been placed in SPY instead: (click to enlarge) The date range used is the same, but the annualized volatility of the portfolio has increased from 9.4% to 13.7% because this portfolio lacks balancing effect of TLT using a negative correlation to keep portfolio values steady when investors are fleeing the equity market to buy up long term treasury securities. Conclusion TLT is offering most of the things I’m looking for in a long term bond fund. The fund has high volatility, but the low correlation with the market results in a beta of negative .55. When I’m looking for long term bond funds my first areas to consider are the expense ratio and whether the fund is eligible for free trading. Unfortunately, TLT does not fall on my list for free trading which is a significant problem since I want to be regularly rebalancing the positions which means much higher trading fees if the ETF is not eligible for free trading. Despite that one weakness, TLT does well on every other metric. It offers a solid negative beta and enough income to feel like it is in the portfolio for more than just the negative beta. This is a very respectable ETF for long term treasury exposure. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. Additional disclosure: TLT has a negative correlation with most equity investments and a negative correlation with short term high yield bond funds

The Guggenheim S&P 500 Equal Weight Utilities ETF: Utilitarianism

An alternatives to a traditional government bond holding. Utilities offer steady, consistent returns and are largely immune to the business cycle. This equal weight utilities fund is biased towards low dividend risk, yet has a respectable return. The world of investing has changed much over the past five years due to the financial crises of 2008 and its subsequent recession. The realization that investing may never be the same is a growing one, particular when it comes to income. As it stands now, even if central banks are able to normalize policy, it still may be years before government bond yields normalize, and that’s under the assumption that all advanced economies will continue to grow uniformly. Recent economic reversals in newly emerged economies, particularly the “BRICS” along with the collapse in commodity prices and the astonishing overproduction of crude petroleum have all weighed on high quality assets yields. High quality government securities have been pressed to their limits. Furthermore, cross market technology, institutional trading, pension fund demands and ‘carry asset’ strategies have created much higher volatility in the once mundane government bond market. The point of the matter is that the individual investor may be saving for retirement in a completely new world. The strategy of holding long term government bonds as a portfolio cornerstone has become an ‘old world’ concept. Utilities assets may be one replacement solution for government bond holdings. There are several to choose from, and one of the top yielding in the class is the Guggenheim S&P 500 Equal Weight Utilities ETF (NYSEARCA: RYU ) . According to Guggenheim, the fund “… Seeks to replicate as closely as possible, before fees and expenses, the performance of the S&P 500 Equal Weight Index Telecommunication Services & Utilities. ..” A word about the ‘equal weight’ S&P Index: according to S&P, the equal weight S&P 500 index is an alternative version of its renowned S&P 500 market cap weighted index. In the equal weight index each S&P 500 member constitutes 20 basis points of the S&P 500 index with a quarterly rebalancing in order to prevent excessive turnover. The S&P 500 equal weight Telecommunications and Utility Index is merely a subset of the equal weight S&P 500 index. Since the fund is based on ‘equal weightings’, it seems superfluous to analyze the top ten holdings. Instead, since the objective here is dividend risk assessment it would be more useful to analyze the potential risk to regular distributions. This may be achieved by comparing a company’s payout ratio to the dividend. Since a payout ratio is defined to be the proportion of earnings paid out as dividends, the lower the payout ratio the less likely the dividend will be reduced and conversely, the higher the payout ratio, the more likely a dividend may be reduced. The fund has 34 holdings and an average dividend yield of 4.0571%. The average payout ratio is 73.62%. (This is less than the S&P 500 market cap weighted payout ratio of almost 85). Five of the holdings have payout ratios of over 100%; 21 of the 34 holdings are below the average payout ratio; 11 are above; 2 have non applicable payout ratios; 14 of the holdings are above the fund’s average yield, and 20 are below the fund’s average yield. Hence, the fund is biased towards the ability of the holding to continue to pay or increase dividends. The chart below summarizes the payout ratio (in blue) and the yield (in red). (click to enlarge) (Data from Reuters and Guggenheim) The 10 lowest payout ratios average out to 44.39% with an average yield of 3.563%. There are no Telecom Service companies in the fund with a payout ratio low enough to place it in the ten lowest of the fund. (Data from Reuters and Guggenheim) The 10 holdings with the lowest payout ratio are summarized in the table below. Company Type Price/Earnings (TTM) Price/Cash Flow Price/Book Divided Yield Payout Ratio AES Corp (NYSE: AES ) Independent Power and Renewable 9.70 3.24 2.14 3.31% 23.43% Edison International (NYSE: EIX ) Electric Utility 12.60 5.52 1.72 2.80% 33.70% PPL Corp (NYSE: PPL ) Electric Utility 10.84 6.49 2.11 4.81% 38.81% Dominion Resources (NYSE: D ) Multi-Utility 24.29 12.25 3.40 3.65% 41.43% Scana Corp (NYSE: SCG ) Multi-Utility 10.29 6.69 1.44 4.04% 43.98% Nextera Energy (NYSE: NEE ) Electric Utility 15.56 8.11 2.16 3.02% 45.61% Sempra Energy (NYSE: SRE ) Multi-Utility 17.77 9.24 2.07 2.88% 48.80% Public Service Enterprise (NYSE: PEG ) Multi-Utility 11.13 6.56 1.61 3.85% 52.13% Eversource Energy (NYSE: ES ) Electric Utility 16.76 9.80 1.50 3.46% 55.99% Exelon Corp (NYSE: EXC ) Electric Utility 11.59 4.20 1.15 3.95% 56.51% (Data from Reuters and Guggenheim) There are, as one might expect, different types of Utility Companies. Diversified Telecommunications includes entertainment, mobile, internet and voice services; Electric Utilities are, as the name implies, electricity providers although some, Duke Energy for instance, provide natural gas as well; Independent Power and Renewables generate power through renewable resources like wind and solar and also install residential and business solar systems; Multi-Utilities provide natural gas, electricity, storage facilities and pipeline delivery. (Data from Reuters and Guggenheim) For a few detailed examples: AES is global, providing services to Chile, Columbia, Argentina, Brazil, Central America, the Caribbean, Europe and Asia. AES generates renewable power from solar, wind, hydro, bio mass and landfill gas. Scana Corporation, classified by the Guggenheim fund as ‘Multi-Utility’ provides natural gas as well as fiber-optic and telecomm services. Dominion Resources distributes natural gas, electricity, natural gas storage, LNG transportation and risk management services. It also has an equity stake in a joint venture with Caiman Energy called Blue Racer , a Marcellus Shale natural gas processing company; neither are publically owned companies. NiSource Inc (NYSE: NI ) is a holding company providing services through 13 subsidiaries for gas, electric and pipeline as well as a financing service. Many of these companies also hedge or trade derivative contracts. The point being that for utility funds with only a few holdings, it’s worth examining the descriptions or company profiles of the holdings to fully understand the depth of the individual holdings. (click to enlarge) Lastly, the fund has a reasonably long history, incepted in November of 2006. Its expense ratio is reasonable at 0.40%. Its total net assets are over $112,487,000 distributed over 34 holdings with a cash reserve. The average daily volume is 186,066 shares per day and there are 1.6 million outstanding shares. It currently trades at a slight discount, $-0.08 per share to NAV. The fund has paid a total of $17.80 in quarterly dividends since inception. Hence, the fund provides a reasonable yield in today’s low yield environment, low volatility with a beta of 0.87 and reasonable liquidity. Should the global economy contract because of a readjustment in the Chinese economy, and the U.S. economy remains reasonably strong with depressed commodity prices, a utility fund such as the Guggenheim S&P 500 Equal Weight Utilities ETF would do well generating good returns with relative safety for some time to come. Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. Additional disclosure: Additional disclosure: CFDs, spreadbetting and FX can result in losses exceeding your initial deposit. They are not suitable for everyone, so please ensure you understand the risks. Seek independent financial advice if necessary. Nothing in this article should be considered a personal recommendation. It does not account for your personal circumstances or appetite for risk.

TerraForm Power: Is It Time To Buy This YieldCo?

Considering the recent downfall in TerraForm Power stock levels we look at if it is worth investing in this security. We review various risk factors and our assessment on required yield based on the risk factors. Currently we view the valuation range of $17.50 to $20 subject to downward revision if Vivint Acquisition goes through. Over the last year, we have been consistently negative on YieldCo valuations and did not see a reason to invest in any of the YieldCos in the market. We were of the opinion that the market was mispricing risk in the long term assets held by these YieldCos. However, the yield bubble that we were in for much of the last year has caused many of the YieldCos to be priced at incredibly high valuations and consequently drove project developers like SunEdison (NYSE: SUNE ) go on an unsustainable growth path. One of the risks of this yield mispricing is that project developers counting on low yields tend to develop projects at unacceptably low margins. When yields rise, as they did recently, these developers find themselves cash strapped and with limited options on exiting from the projects under development. That is the quagmire that SunEdison finds itself in today. Companies affected by this same malady but to a much lesser extent, in an approximate order of declining risk, include SolarCity (NASDAQ: SCTY ), Vivint Solar (NYSE: VSLR ), SunRun (NASDAQ: RUN ) in the residential sector and Canadian Solar (NASDAQ: CSIQ ), SunPower (NASDAQ: SPWR ), Fist Solar (NASDAQ: FSLR ), Trina Solar (NYSE: TSL ) and JinkoSolar (NYSE: JKS ) in the large scale project sector. Of the above group, we are skeptical about the survival chances of the residential solar installers as their risks are far in excess of what the markets currently comprehend. Of the latter group, we believe the risk factors are more manageable given the manufacturing component of the companies, the much smaller project component, cost/margin advantage due to the use of in-house panels, and the location and returns of the assets under development. Of the solar asset holding companies, only SunEdison, First Solar and SunPower have their own YieldCos. When it comes to these companies many investors have tended to tie the performance of these sponsor companies with their YieldCos. As misguided as that line of thinking was, the markets and the Wall Street analyst community played a role in reinforcing that sentiment. However, we believe the time has now come to decisively cut the cord between sponsors and YieldCos and look at these companies separately and objectively. With this mindset, we now review the prospects for TerraForm Power (NASDAQ: TERP ). It should be noted that TerraForm Power has fallen from a peak of about $42 in April of this year to about $22 today – almost a 50% correction for a so called stable yield vehicle. At the current price, TerraForm Power yields about 6% on a TTM dividend basis and about 8% on forecasted 2016 dividend basis. Is the current stock price a reasonable approximation of the Company value? Or, conversely, is the yield level appropriate for this class of assets? To evaluate this, we believe one has to consider the risk factors of the asset base of the YieldCo and assess an appropriate risk/yield level. Our view of the required yields and risk factors are as follows: – To begin with, when it comes to energy assets, investors should note that not all solar asset classes have the same risk. We are of the opinion that, all else being equal, US utility assets deserve a discount rate of about 8%, US high grade commercial assets about 10%, and US residential assets about 12%+. – While TerraForm Power management prides in saying the YieldCo consists mainly of OECD assets and thus low risk, we believe investors should keep close tabs on the source of the assets. Not all OECD countries have similar currency and country risk profiles and some countries have a vastly higher set of risks than others. Several of the currencies have depreciated significantly vis-à-vis dollar and there is not much of a compelling story on why the trends should reverse. In general, assets from any country with likely future depreciation against dollar should cause the yield to increase. – Remaining life of the PPA is also a significant risk factor. With the rapidity of the changes in the solar industry, it is likely that some of the solar PPAs will not even be renewed. To the extant they are renewed, it is likely that they will be renewed at prices far lower than the existing PPA levels. – It is also likely that many of the assets would require significant upgrades for them to be renewed. For example, the utility or commercial customer may demand certain amount of dispatchability or a shaping of the energy. The capital costs required at renewal for any such changes and upgrades should be rolled into the IRR and yield calculations. – The rate of the PPA compared to the current market should also be a consideration. The larger the disparity between market and PPA rates, the higher the motivation for the customer to renegotiate and a chance that the asset may become distressed. – The potential for curtailment for each of the assets should be evaluated and discounted. – Wind resources, on the other hand, have a different risk profile than solar. Wind has an energy profile that complements the solar production and may end up holding up better in terms of PPA prices in the future. Wind resources may also likely need smaller battery support to make the power plant resources “pseudo dispatchable”. In other words, the wind assets may have a lower risk factor at renewal time than solar assets. – Investors should note that this is only a partial list of risks and any other risks specific to an asset or asset class should also be considered and impact evaluated While having a checklist can be useful, there are multiple challenges in evaluating the risks and costs we present above starting with disclosures. Even if the risks and costs can be reasonably identified, weighing of the factors is, at best, an informed estimate. When dealing with such unknowns, a reasonable safety margin is mandatory. Without using much scientific rigor in analysis, our estimate is that the current portfolio of assets in TerraForm Power need to yield at least 10% to provide a satisfactory risk adjusted return to investors. This, in turn, would imply that the valuation of TERP is likely around $17.50 a share based on forward guidance. Note that this valuation does not give any premium for growth. One question to ponder in this context is how much growth is possible at the new and increased cost of equity. To understand the Company’s growth potential, one has to estimate the future cost of capital for TerraForm Power. Firstly, while it is true that the cost of equity has gone up substantially for TERP, we believe that there is a reasonable chance that TerraForm Power can obtain debt capital at attractive rates. Secondly, markets have consistently demonstrated that unsophisticated investors are likely to buy debt and equity at surprisingly high valuations. If TerraForm Power can attain a WACC in the 8 to 10% range, we believe that growth, though hard to come by, is possible. Discounting for possible growth, and assuming a fairly benign yield environment, we can see TerraForm Power’s intrinsic value reaching about $20 by the end of 2016. This, of course, assumes that asset quality remains reasonable. As we wrap up this discussion, investors should consider another key factor when acquiring a YieldCo stock. While the current yield bubble has burst, it is neither the first one not will it be the last one. With Wall Street’s penchant for newfangled metrics, and with no shortage of investors subscribing to yet another non-standard valuation methodology, managements will always be faced with bubbles in the stock price and yields and will be issuing new equity or debt to take advantage of it. When the prices of these instruments correct from bubble levels, the preexisting stockholders who acquired the equity at a lower level will be beneficiaries of the largesse of the new stockholders. To benefit from this effect, it is very important for yield oriented investors to accumulate the YieldCo stock when the asset class is out of favor and shun purchases when the asset class is trading at rich valuation levels. All things considered, for yield oriented investors, we see TerraForm Power as a buy in the $17.50 to $20 range. While the stock has not gotten to this trading range, alert investors may be able to enter the position when there is a market weakness. Alternately, given the limited downside from the stated levels, the position can also be entered through selling puts at the $17.50 or $20 levels. The key risk factor at this point for this YieldCo is the acquisition of Vivint Solar . While this deal makes increasingly less sense, management has continued to stick with it to date. Vivint asset purchase and the aggressive addition of residential assets ahead of ITC step down could push up the risk adjusted yield requirements of the portfolio to north of 11%. In such an event, the entry point to TerraForm Power should be adjusted accordingly. Given the emerging nature of the energy landscape, we believe there may be several unanticipated risk factors for this equity and from that view, TerraForm Power can be considered overvalued. Summary Of Our View: Enter through selling put contracts in the $17.50 to $20 range. Disclosure: I am/we are long FSLR, SUNE, JKS, TSL, CSIQ. (More…) I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.